> John L. wrote:
> How is it that singers come to talk about technique,
> which I understand as a
> > _way of doing something, as though it were a thing
> itself? Is it
> > because singers have no strings to change, no
> reeds to fuss with, no
> > valves to lubricate, no skins to adjust? Is it
> because singers, going
> > on stage with no external instrument, tend to feel
> vulnerable, and in
> > order to calm their anxiety pretend that they take
> with them
> > something solid (their technique!) to protect
> themselves against the
> > risk of appearing foolish?
> >
John,
I think when most singers talk about getting their
technique "solid," they don't really mean it as a
tangible thing. I think they are implying that it is
a state when they don't have to think about HOW they
sing anymore. That's the way I interpret it.
=====
Patricia R. Combs, mezzo soprano extraordinaire
"If music be the food of live, (sing) on!" - Shakespeare
__________________________________________________
|
|  |
